“The applicant’s submissions to the contrary had a significant degree of unreality about them.”
Justice Debra Mortimer
Mortimer found Rugg had exaggerated elements of her evidence about her relationship with Ryan. She said Rugg’s arguments indicated she was keen to return to political life in Canberra but did not demonstrate a willingness to work for Ryan in Kooyong. Rugg said in her evidence she one day wanted to become an MP.
“It is all about Ms Rugg,” Mortimer wrote. “There could have been evidence of a high sense of willingness and dedication to assisting Dr Ryan … Ms Rugg has not given that evidence. She has given a lot of evidence about her own ambitions, her own desires to be in Canberra.”
Two of Rugg’s social media posts – complaining about her treatment and criticising teal MP’s views on superannuation – displayed poor judgement, Mortimer found.
“This is not a person who wants to return to supporting Dr Ryan.”
Mortimer said a trial, which will likely last for weeks, would not be heard before July. It may hear from other staffers and Ryan’s lawyers intend to present office swipe card data to contradict Rugg’s claim of working 70-hour weeks.
The decision to deny Rugg a pathway back to the office represents a small win for Ryan, who did not want the former same-sex marriage and anti-News Corp campaigner to return to work.
But the court’s call on Rugg’s immediate employment does not settle the substantive question of whether Rugg was mistreated. This will be resolved in the future trial and could turn into a test case for the limits of reasonable work hours across politics and other sectors.
A full trial, Mortimer said, would explore a range of contested facts. These disputes include the nature of the working relationship, how many hours Rugg worked and whether they were reasonable, whether the pair behaved as poorly as the other alleged, and if Rugg was forced to resign.
“There are real divisions in the accounts given by Dr Ryan and Ms Rugg, such that the reliability and credibility of their evidence about what happened during the five months of the employment relationship is going to be critical to the outcome of the proceeding,” she wrote.
Rugg’s lawyer, Maurice Blackburn’s Josh Bornstein, declined to comment immediately after the decision was handed down.
“We’re going to go away and look at [the ruling],” he said.
Ryan’s legal team left the Federal Court without commenting.
Bornstein said in a statement last week that Rugg will seek to add claims of ‘serious contraventions’ of the Fair Work Act against the Commonwealth.
“A serious contravention occurs where the breach of labour standards is knowing and systematic. The penalty for serious contraventions is a maximum of $660,000”.
Loading
“The serious contravention claim is made in circumstances in which Dr Ryan publicly acknowledged that her staff were working 70-hour weeks and that it was not safe.”
Both women have sought to avoid a lengthy court trial.
Four sources with direct awareness of the case, who spoke anonymously because of legal sensitivities, said Rugg’s and Ryan’s lawyers had spent weeks attempting to strike a pre-trial settlement, potentially involving compensation.
The Commonwealth – which is also a party to the trial, and is accused of breaching the Fair Work Act by allowing a culture of excessive work – has not agreed to repeated offers to settle, the sources said.
Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis from Jacqueline Maley. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter here.
For more latest Politics News Click Here